Ban on alcohol and cigarettes: Who owns your body?

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
Your argument is based on major flaws:
Your misunderstanding of the ban (it's only on sales and transport of tobacco, not consumption - if you got it, smoke it up)
Your misunderstanding of freedom (forgivable as it's a humdinger we're all fed from childhood. The concept of "freedom" is a strong seller, for everything from political parties to panty liners)



That's quite a leap of logic. Would you agree or disagree that it's a good idea to have everything for sale as anyone wants? You know how slippery this slope is? Let's see, how about explosives? Should TNT be available to all citizens? If I can make it and can't trade it, I'm no longer free? I can drive, I can ****, I can run, but not free if I can't sell my potentially human-vaporizing product. How about child porn? Well that turned downright oily. If I have a kid and want to film it naked, and share with some friends online, perhaps trade pics for theirs, shouldn't I be able to, if I am free, according to you?

So hopefully you are seeing that there is a necessity to restrict trade right out the gates. You were never free to purchase anything you wanted in the first place, not legally at least.




That's another Olympic-level leap of logic. Is it a threat against you that nobody is able to buy dynamite at Checkers?



Are children property of the parents?
Some good questions there. I'll give them some thought and come back to you ;-)
 
Last edited:

themba990

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
3,932
The funny thing is with people who want rebel against the “system” is that they have the option to take themselves out of the simulation at any point and cease to be a part of the farce that is reality; but, no they’d rather start threads online and argue over semantics.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,518
The funny thing is with people who want rebel against the “system” is that they have the option to take themselves out of the simulation at any point and cease to be a part of the farce that is reality; but, no they’d rather start threads online and argue over semantics.
Are you suggesting the ultimate solution here by any chance?
 

copacetic

King of the Hippies
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
56,628
Drinkers, smokers, and for that matter, sinners of all stripes... who owns your body?

Defnition: ownership

The moral and/or legal right to exclusive control over a physical resource.

Defnition: slavery

The legal right to ownership, including acquisition, disposal i.e. trade, of another (living) person's body.

In principle, does the individual own his body? Or does the state own it?

[ Note: All opinions on this thread are welcome.... even if you don't agree with me. But if you don't agree, share your reasoning, don't surround the idea with noise and ad hominems, then label *your* disruption as [interested parties going 'off topic'], and subsequently report interested parties to the moderator. That would be disingenuous and against the spirit of open enquiry. If you really can't stand confronting the topic or a poster, use the Ignore feature, otherwise it just makes you look desperately intolerant of other viewpoints. (you know who you are). ]
I find it absolutely absurd the notion that I live in a world where I could end up in jail for taking a drug. It's absolutely ridiculous, and I simply cannot fathom how anyone could in good conscience support such a policy.

That said, the abuse of drugs have societal consequences, and as members of a given society we certainly have an imperative to reduce the harms caused by drug abuse. How we do this is complicated (I have some thoughts on the topic here), and not something with a simple answer.

I am happy for a benign state to exert some control over my actions, as societies would not function without this, obviously, especially the ****ed up ones we've created.

I draw the line though at any attempt to control my personal actions that have little if any effect on anyone else.

*edit*

I have no ****ing idea what's going on here. I feel like I've erred in responding.
 

Grant

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
49,094
Much better attitude.
the tone of your last couple of messages kinda indicates a desire on your part to be emperor of a land / the lord of the manor / he who rules land and sea - just under the insidious veil of secession & the form of a new nation that would be quick to devolve into a dictatorship.

i asked you previously, but you chose not to answer - so i ask again:
is this secession obsession you have brought to this forum, is it one you have been pushing on other online platforms ?
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
the tone of your last couple of messages kinda indicates a desire on your part to be emperor of a land / the lord of the manor / he who rules land and sea - just under the insidious veil of secession & the form of a new nation that would be quick to devolve into a dictatorship.

i asked you previously, but you chose not to answer - so i ask again:
is this secession obsession you have brought to this forum, is it one you have been pushing on other online platforms ?
Another reply you missed.

Go back and have a look at my replies... the answer is just after your meltdown... and just before I was bumped off the thread (the second meltdown, not the first)
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
I find it absolutely absurd the notion that I live in a world where I could end up in jail for taking a drug. It's absolutely ridiculous, and I simply cannot fathom how anyone could in good conscience support such a policy.

That said, the abuse of drugs have societal consequences, and as members of a given society we certainly have an imperative to reduce the harms caused by drug abuse. How we do this is complicated (I have some thoughts on the topic here), and not something with a simple answer.

I am happy for a benign state to exert some control over my actions, as societies would not function without this, obviously, especially the ****ed up ones we've created.

I draw the line though at any attempt to control my personal actions that have little if any effect on anyone else.

*edit*

I have no ****ing idea what's going on here. I feel like I've erred in responding.
You sound like a reasonable person.

I agree that drugs should be decriminalized.

Unfortunately some will interpret that as an endorsement, which it isn't.

If murder was legalized tomorrow, they envision everyone rushing out to make a kill before there's no-one left to murder. (Of course, I don't think murder should be legal... just that a moral imperative is upstream of legal systems. Not everything that is legal is legitimately legal.)

Thanks for the link. I see you've been around for quite a while on here.
 
Last edited:

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
the tone of your last couple of messages kinda indicates a desire on your part to be emperor of a land / the lord of the manor / he who rules land and sea - just under the insidious veil of secession & the form of a new nation that would be quick to devolve into a dictatorship.
This is so unnecessary.

The way you and your amigos descend on a thread like a pack of hyenas, and go to work on people who are just trying to broaden their view without getting slaughtered for not knowing everything about a topic. It's so obviously predatory... don't you think people can see?

I never professed to be an expert. I made it clear I'm relatively new to the topic. If you are going to come down, rather go for a constructive critique.... a little bit of banter and fun along the way is fine. But there is a line, and It just gets a bit tiring after a while.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
The funny thing is with people who want rebel against the “system” is that they have the option to take themselves out of the simulation at any point and cease to be a part of the farce that is reality; but, no they’d rather start threads online and argue over semantics.
I take it your second post explains this one, so I won't comment other than to say... there may be more than one solution to the legal abuses being perpetrated. I'm open to suggestions about what could be tried.

I'll start another thread about that but with this one, I just wanted to take the temperature here about the core of the issue for me. Self-ownership is a starting point.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
Your argument is based on major flaws:
Your misunderstanding of the ban (it's only on sales and transport of tobacco, not consumption - if you got it, smoke it up)
Your misunderstanding of freedom (forgivable as it's a humdinger we're all fed from childhood. The concept of "freedom" is a strong seller, for everything from political parties to panty liners)
Currently. My criticism of these laws is not because there are only bad effects... it's the fact that the role of the state *to decide* could fast become the new normal. Yes, they ban this and partially unban it later, evn lifting the tobacco ban entirely is not 'entirely' because there would again be a tax on tobacco. Step back and try to see the bigger picture, the overall trajectory.

Today it's trade in product X or Y. Tomorrow it's ingestion(there are already bans on ingesting certain products), because it affects your health which tax-payers are being forced to pay for.

So, now it becomes your neighbour's business what you ingest or how much you eat.... hence a law, which otherwise would have been rejected by any thinking person, now becomes justifiable to the person being forced to pay for other people's personal choices. Do you see how this progresses? It's a slippery totalitarian slope, once you step on it. With each gram of shifted weight you have less control over reversing out and you never know where the point of no return is.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,518
Currently. My criticism of these laws is not because there are only bad effects... it's the fact that the role of the state *to decide* could fast become the new normal. Yes, they ban this and partially unban it later, evn lifting the tobacco ban entirely is not 'entirely' because there would again be a tax on tobacco. Step back and try to see the bigger picture, the overall trajectory.

Today it's trade in product X or Y. Tomorrow it's ingestion(there are already bans on ingesting certain products), because it affects your health which tax-payers are being forced to pay for.

So, now it becomes your neighbour's business what you ingest or how much you eat.... hence a law, which otherwise would have been rejected by any thinking person, now becomes justifiable to the person being forced to pay for other people's personal choices. Do you see how this progresses? It's a slippery totalitarian slope, once you step on it. With each gram of shifted weight you have less control over reversing out and you never know where the point of no return is.
I hate to break this to you, the state deciding for you has been the norm for hundreds of years... its not new or fancy, its the way things have been.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
lexity said:
If you are not free to trade, you personally are not free.
That's quite a leap of logic.
I don't think it's so great a leap as you imply. But I'm happy to explore further.

Would you agree or disagree that it's a good idea to have everything for sale as anyone wants?
Yes, I do agree. As long as any exchange is voluntary i.e. uncoerced, this is a check on what unwanted effects can be socialized i.e. off-loaded onto others who have not consented.

You know how slippery this slope is? Let's see, how about explosives? Should TNT be available to all citizens?
Yes, it should.... in the jurisdiction where you agree to it being legal. Not in the jurisdiction where you have not chosen to live. If you choose a jurisdiction which makes it illegal, you would remain unaffected by the jurisdiction in which it is legal. So you would have nothing to worry about.

For benefit of anyone wondering why it might not be a problem or anywhere near as great a problem as it might at first appear (only the jurisdiction/s where it is legal):

The problem with the potential for destruction, using various products that are for sale to any adult, is the problem of individual responsibility having been severely undermined in Western cultures. Whenever these examples come up, the evidence in support of them is taken from current, mixed-mongrel private property violating, interventionist economies, where it has become the duty of the state, largely unaccountable for gross negligence and criminal acts, to act as consumer-protector.

That is the problem with *this* current society. The one I advocate may not be so easily achievable as switching a light on, but it would be orders of magnitude better, in fundamental ways, instantly. Because you are putting an immediate stop to violations of private property rights. That is a big deal, which understandably is easy to overlook. But that is simply a hurdle that can be removed by peacefully challenging narratives which don't stand up to elementary scrutiny. And this kind of challenge is a matter of habit rather than skill. Yes, it requires being prepared to challenge one's own thinking and potential blind spots(we all have them), but it doesn't cost nearly as much, in terms of effort, skill and attention, as is often implied.

Going back to your example.

Explosives can cause a lot of damage. That is both a feature and a bug.

The solution - getting rid of the bug, or minimizing it so that it becomes far less threatening - is to stop cultivating an entitlement mentality, rife in today's Western world, where everyone is encouraged to live at the expense of others i.e. the free lunch... where you are not responsible for something going wrong, the state is.

When the individual is responsible/accountable for his decisions, his behavior will change in the sense he will have an incentive to pay attention to avoidance of errors or bad choices.
 
Last edited:

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
If I can make it and can't trade it, I'm no longer free? I can drive, I can ****, I can run, but not free if I can't sell my potentially human-vaporizing product.
Not sure if you mean vaporizers used by human beings for inhaling, or vaporizers as in eliminating human beings.

Anyway, a free society, in my world view, consists of a legal system underpinned by protection of private property rights.

If you can imagine private property as one's body, first, and - by extention, through voluntary interaction(which depends on self-ownership) - any physical resource one acquires. The two go together like the double sided-coin, except there is an order: body comes first and external resources, by extension.

There are - in this imaginary free society - a few rules which determine legitimate acquisition i.e. a) original appropriation, b) contract, c) gift, d) restitution.

A society in which people own their bodies but nothing else, doesn't really make sense to me. And I imagine for real wealth and prosperity to be available to anyone who reaches for it, it is an all or nothing proposition i.e. private property should begin with one's body and apply to external resources, according to the above framework, and should apply equally to all adult members of the society, without exception. I will answer the children question, you asked, where you asked it.

If the two do not go together i.e. nobody owns physical resources outside of his body, there could only be wise overlords engaged in the futility of central planning of production, making yet more dogs breakfasts of human societies. The results of central-planning, of economies, are not hidden, but they are the reason for mass distraction of the kind which characterizes today's Western media industry, which perpetually sings from the hymn-book of its real customers i.e. advertisers, validating Keynesian economics and the writings and pontifications of other Collectivist proselytizers and acolytes.

Central economic planning doesn't work. It only survives in the aftermath of a period of sustained legal protection of private property rights. Once this pillar of individual primacy begins to be steadily undermined, with no meaningful resistance, the society's capacity for wealth generation, will begin to crumble. And those allegedly-consensually-appointed 'wise' advisers having the decision-making power, without the corresponding accountability, deciding for everyone how much of every product and component should be produced in what order and in preference to which other products, is a form of societal suicide.

Centrally-planned societies are incompatible with individual primacy. They are an artifact of a contrived mandate to intervene in private individuals affairs, a mandate which is built on fear, intimidation and threats. Hence its illegitimacy. For everyone but a few, this is illegal and that is unsustainable. Legal protection of private property, of the above definition or very similar, is necessary for wealth-generation.

The wonderful thing about those who advocate secession, with the above value of private property in-tact, is that they don't want to force anyone into anything. They only want the freedom to make their own mistakes/successes in living under a legal system of their own choosing. This is Voluntaryism, at its core. If you prefer the current system, no secessionist of this kind will require you give it up. They may not agree that it is by consent that the state retains any semblance of legitimacy, but they will not coerce you to secede, yourself. They only expect the same courtesy i.e. to be free to live under a jurisdiction of his and his community's choosing, where they are located, geographically. From there on, anyone in any other jurisdiction, is free to sit back and learn the lessons on offer at the expense of others, or view the successes and be inspired to emulate them.
 
Last edited:

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
How about child porn? Well that turned downright oily. If I have a kid and want to film it naked, and share with some friends online, perhaps trade pics for theirs, shouldn't I be able to, if I am free, according to you?
If you are not free to coerce others into sharing your twisted sense of 'good' child-rearing, you will have to rely on the support of those who already do share it. Typically there are not many out there, even as it it is, and it takes people of moral strength to build a voluntary society. No-one would be legally obliged to support you in any way whatsoever, and you would not be able to seek refuge in the state.

Now, if this practice of child-rearing is as disastrous as you make out - in this case I'd agree - then this highly unlikely experiment will be very short-lived, and would in all likelihood never come into existence in the first place. Because declaring independence requires a lot of personal characteristics, to bring about and make a success of it, which are incompatible with causing physical or emotional harm to others.

This is one of those problems which is facilitated and exacerbated by people who are typically more-dependent on the state, not individuals who have had to rely for support and help, in life, on those who only voluntarily give it. It's not realistic to imagine getting rid of the entitlement mentality in one's culture, living at the expense of others at the point of a gun, and that society not becoming more resilient to the kind of excesses and extremes of this example.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
18,189
you make some solid points @lexity must say there are valid arguments there.

unfortunately people tend to behave like sheep and because one country introduced laws banning X, means ALL should ban X.

to be so forward thinking and allow people (within certain limits) to smoke weed or to do X
is a progressive and advanced aspect that many don't have the brainpower to fully accept.

due to many factors such as them being conditioned to accept this as the new normal.

myself, ive always believed your body is your own, if you feel confident enough to not wear a ninja mask.
then nobody should force you to, but conversely if you get sick, its your own issue.

same to if you fit a lowering springs on your car to make it look cool,
but end up breaking something else, your the one fixing it.

freedom is a concept that is slowly being eroded, in that I can fully agree with you.
especially in the climate we find ourselves in with covid and all the mass hysteria we find ourselves dealing with.
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
So hopefully you are seeing that there is a necessity to restrict trade right out the gates.
You don't state whose responsibility it should be, to implement restrictions.

A voluntary society is restrictive by nature. You have to get someone's voluntary consent if you want to interact with them.

You were never free to purchase anything you wanted in the first place, not legally at least.
This is true, in the case of a lot of products, of this jurisdiction and in any other jurisdiction which tolerates the violation of private property rights. But not all products and services. The society would collapse before it got to the stage of zero trade being legal.

Not that this has ever prevented plenty of people from trying. But it always ends in economic collapse, and people emerge, over time, seemingly with little to no memory of the 'why's and 'wherefore's.
 

ToxicBunny

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
90,518
Yussie, you know you are DEFINITELY on the wrong track when eg2505 reckons you have some solid points and valid arguments
 

lexity

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
780
you make some solid points @lexity must say there are valid arguments there.

unfortunately people tend to behave like sheep and because one country introduced laws banning X, means ALL should ban X.

to be so forward thinking and allow people (within certain limits) to smoke weed or to do X
is a progressive and advanced aspect that many don't have the brainpower to fully accept.

due to many factors such as them being conditioned to accept this as the new normal.

myself, ive always believed your body is your own, if you feel confident enough to not wear a ninja mask.
then nobody should force you to, but conversely if you get sick, its your own issue.

same to if you fit a lowering springs on your car to make it look cool,
but end up breaking something else, your the one fixing it.

freedom is a concept that is slowly being eroded, in that I can fully agree with you.
especially in the climate we find ourselves in with covid and all the mass hysteria we find ourselves dealing with.
That's quite well put.
 
Top